detect_project_dependencies

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the local-only constraint and lists supported file types, which is helpful. However, it does not describe additional behaviors such as recursion depth, handling of missing files, performance guarantees, or whether it scans subdirectories.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action and resource, then adds supported ecosystems and the local-only constraint. Every sentence serves a purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 2 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, supported formats, and local scope well. Missing details include the output structure (does it return a list of dependency names? versions? tree?) and error handling for missing manifests.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Parameter schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by clarifying 'root' as the project root directory, 'include_dev' as dev/test/peer dependencies, and listing supported ecosystems not detailed in the schema. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Inspect manifests/lockfiles') and resource ('local project directory') and clearly identifies supported ecosystems (Python, npm, Rust). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_package_info by focusing on local dependency detection.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly notes 'Local-only — runs on the user's machine,' setting clear context for when to use this tool (local project analysis) vs. alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for remote analysis.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.